Honesty as a “Communicative Tool” in Punishment: A Comparative Study of Judges in the U.S. and Australia

• In Event: Qualitative Research on Psychology and Decision-making in Courts

Abstract

Recognition of a defendant’s honesty in court may not only refigure their punishment's communicative-desired significance by victims and community but also, by extension, refigure formal punishment-related decisions made on their behalf by authorities, particularly judges, in the criminal-legal system. At the same time, social and cultural factors influence attitudes toward responses and modes of punishment. In particular, the U.S. and Australia fundamentally differ in values underpinning their legal systems. This means that ways in which defendant honesty is understood and valued by judges in these systems, as well as what they believe honesty "communicates" and if/how it should be factored into sentencing decisions, could also differ. Building upon this framework, this study examines the significance, role, and complexities of defendant honesty as a "communicative tool" in punishment for judges in the U.S. and Australia. Drawing from interviews with 45 judges from these two systems, we examine two areas of comparison: 1) how judges value honesty as a "communicative tool" in punishment and its consequences, and 2) how judges view or experience the limits of honesty as a “communicative tool” in punishment. Overall, this study represents the first known empirical inquiry of offender honesty as a "communicative tool" in punishment considerations.

Authors

• Colleen Berryessa, Rutgers University

• Carolina R. Caliman, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice

• Madison Baczuk, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice

• Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Flinders University